« Orson Scott Card and the Ender's Game movie | Main | Your hit parade (500 BC edition) Friday open thread »

November 04, 2013

Comments

How do you square his popularity based on "getting the job done" with the "sheer incompetence"?

Christie's the only electable Republican, mostly because the corporate media will see him as entertaining and promote him as a moderate. I wish he was a real moderate. I don't know if he has any real political convictions, though. He seems, oddly, to be another Romney with opinions that depend on who he is talking to.

I don't think his weight will count against him. (Why should it?) I think the bullying will help him with rightwing voters.

There were cynical calculations concerning both the Son of Cain and the Mormonbot that they could be used to get the White House for the GOP and then bullied to abdicate (or drop dead) in favor of the unelectable 'true' candidate in the Vice slot. I think there have been similar thoughts about Christie, i.e. his health risks could be seen as a feature from a certain POV, provided he could be settled with the 'proper' heir apparent.
The 'problem' is that Christie seems not to be the guy who would willingly accept a Cruz/Cuccinelli/RW-saviour-du-jour as a running mate for that very reason.

Eh, as I like oral sex and more importantly keeping medical devices out of the parts of my female friends after they have sexually assualted and made pregnant my vote today in the Virginia elections is fairly straightforward. (Okay, I'm not sure there's one thing of Cuccinelli I agree with, but those two are the amusing reasons.)

I'm not thrilled with McAuliffe, but I am, honestly, voting for him and his platform and not just against Cuccinelli - my ideal candidate won't exist in Virginia, not any time in the next decade, if ever.

the primaries won't start for 18 months. at this point nobody knows anything about 2016.

It starts with a 2 and ends with a 6.

I'm actually looking at our neighbors in PA. At the end of 2014, if things go the way they appear they will, my professional life is likely to improve, even if only marginally. Corbett's people are a nightmare around here. I don't deal directly with them, but, as the saying goes, sh1t runs downhill.

I dislike Christie intensely, but I have to say he wears his girth like Jackie Gleason or John Goodman.

Which is to say the man probably looks great on the dance floor.

Alone.

in-your-face bully, which is a big part of his appeal here and nationwide

You need to get out of the Boswash corridor more. Much of the nation perceives the NJ in-your-face style as "asshole" and despises it. New Yorkers seem to believe that other people secretly admire the pushy style; they are wrong.

Iowans won't vote for Christie, I predict. Neither will Minnesota, nor New Hampshire. I can't see an early big "win" to give his campaign wings.

Also, I doubt that Christie is physically capable of a Presidential campaign.

I think Christie in 2016 would alienate too many TPers to be successful; they are convinced that they are the core of the party & are being ignored (or betrayed) by their left wing.
They need their illusions scorched out of them, Goldwater-style, before they'll see the light (it'll sound like "America aint wat she used ta be", but will mean "I guess we arent runnin things after all"). Until then the right wing of the GOP will be increasingly restless, turning a sympathetic ear to the likes of Ted Cruz and his attacks on his own party's center.
And I think the GOP moderates see that too. So I think that we'll get a candidate of the far right, but regardless of which wing of the party they come from, it looks now like they'll have an impossible task getting everyone into the tent.

I still think Christie runs in 2016, but he won't let himself get dragged too far to the right. After getting whipped in the 2016 election, the GOP will be ready to turn to him in 2020 & the electorate will probably be ready to switch the WH by then anyway.
[ie this is Reagan redux, with Christie as Clinton]

Sometime in the mid-Eighties, I remember successfully calling 1988 for GHWB and '92 for the Democrats by analogy to the 1830s, casting Reagan as Andrew Jackson and Bush as Martin van Buren, I suppose Clinton would be William Henry Harrison, except he didn't drop dead in office after a month.

But, you know, feats like that are easy to perform with very small sample sizes.

I think one of Nate Silver's last posts on the NYT site was one in which he analyzed the idea that the people get tired of the same party holding the White House after X number of years, and found no consistent pattern.

I would pay money to see Christy confront a gaggle of Teabaggers who accuse him of being a RINO.

'Well, you forgot the h there', said the pachyderm and charged them. ;-)

I would not be surprised if Christie is (if only subconsciously) making somewhat the same calculation as Carleton. He runs in 2016, and finishes second. I think he will come close, and do better in places like Iowa and Minnesota than Joel expects -- but not enough to win. Instead, the nomination goes to some ultra-extremist that the far right of the GOP feels will allow them to prove the truth of their theory that the way to win is to be more conservative, not more moderate.

And then, after an electoral disaster, Christie will be the semi-traditional "next in line" for the 2020 nomination. And in an environment where purity is finally taking a back seat to electability. How well he then does in the general election depends on what kind of a first term the 2016 winner has had.

Giuliani (a NY bully) skipped the Iowa straw poll rather than get the single digit he would have scored.

Iowans have a single digit they'd like to extend to Christie, if he shows up.

"Instead, the nomination goes to some ultra-extremist that the far right of the GOP feels will allow them to prove the truth of their theory that the way to win is to be more conservative, not more moderate."

Setting aside that silly "ultra", I think Virginia demonstrates what conservatives would say if that didn't work: (And likely with some justice.) "Running conservative candidates may or may not be a way to win, but refusing to support conservative candidates if they get the nomination is certainly a way to lose."

You'll only have proof running conservative candidates isn't a route to victory, if the party establishment stops giving up on any race where a conservative wins the nomination, and supports the conservative candidates the way it would the establishment favorites.

Ah, the system never fails you, you can only fail the system.

i hope you're right, joel.

but i suspect there are plenty of Stick It To The Liberals types in the "conservative" base who would get a big kick out of Christie's attitude.

I'm going out on a limb here and predicting that Christie has *no* chance in the 2016 Republican primaries. After his (nearly literal!) embrace of Obama he is anathema to the Tea Party types.

[I'm ignoring the very good advice, "never make predictions, especially about the future."]

Setting aside that silly "ultra"...

Well then, 'extremist' will have to do.

It is interesting that on the right, the base accuses the establishment of staying home and on the left, the establishment accuses the base of staying home.

Obviously the problem lies in the center. It does not seem to be able to make up it's mind. It may not hold.

It's not like there's any question they left him hanging, you just have to compare their spending in previous elections to this one.

As I've remarked before, given the party establishment's behavior, the only appropriate response when they start lecturing conservatives about the need to suck it up and support whatever candidate the party nominates is derisive laughter.

In the unlikely event that I ever run for public office, I'm running as an ultra-mega-maxi-extremist, just to have the big buildup in front of the big letdown where it belongs.

We stock our extremists in super, regular and large sizes.

...given the party establishment's behavior, the only appropriate response when they start lecturing conservatives about the need to suck it up and support whatever candidate the party nominates is derisive laughter.

I'm not sure I get this. I can see not liking what the establishment does, but the derisive laughter strikes me as an inappropriate response. It looks like candidates need the establishment's support, so they've got you by the short hairs. Is that laughable? (It is to me, but I'm not a conservative.)

adding to this: but i suspect there are plenty of Stick It To The Liberals types in the "conservative" base who would get a big kick out of Christie's attitude.

you can see the same thing in the way the liberal base adores Hillary Clinton even though there's little evidence that any of her positions are significantly to the left of Obama's. the typical response to pointing this out is "but she's a fighter! and she won't take any of the GOP's crap!"

(yeah, maybe so. but i thought we were talking about policy?!)

to many, it doesn't matter that the results she'd be likely to get are pretty much the same as what Obama's been able to get; that's more than balanced because that she'd get those results with a feisty stick-it-to-em attitude. (which i think is probably a fantasy, but that's a different topic)

and i don't think that stick-it-to-em attitude is limited to the left. i think know there are a lot of "conservatives" who would be OK with a less-than-Pure President as long as he pissed-off enough liberals along the way.

in other words: Christie or Hillary make for good entertainment. and that matters to a lot of people.

There's always a problem of confusing style with substance.

or of preferring style over substance

I'm not aware of any evidence at all that Mrs. Clinton's policy ideas are more liberal in any way that President Obama's, or than her husband's.

What with 2016 bearing down on us, if such evidence exists, I'd very much like to be made aware of it.

Anyone ? ...

They are both to the right of Nelson Rockefeller, if that helps.

If I could open the Overton Window, I'd jump.

We stock our extremists in super, regular and large sizes.

What? No mini-extremists? ;)

The comments to this entry are closed.

Blog powered by Typepad